Debate Challenges

[velkyn]

My guess is that Voter will argue that BibleGod should not be expected to perform miracles anymore. Even if an amputee is never completely healed you could never expect that BibleGod could not have done so if he so wished!

RT, I can understand the eagerness, but can it wait until the debate is started?

[Voter]

so you won't use your own defintions?  Interesting and I am curious to see how you interpret what you think the site actually says.  Please let me know what this "relevant" article is.

There's links to them in the FAQ pinned to the top of the amputee board. I haven't read all the material. I'm referring to:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/important.htm
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm

How about if we don't count requests for clarification in the post number?

OK.

[relativetruth]

My guess is that Voter will argue that BibleGod should not be expected to perform miracles anymore. Even if an amputee is never completely healed you could never expect that BibleGod could not have done so if he so wished!

RT, I can understand the eagerness, but can it wait until the debate is started?

OK, I understand that but what is the point of this thread then?
Should it be locked between you and Voter? So you can thrash out yours terms of reference? If that is the case then fine.

If I compromised one of your debating strategies I apologise but looking at your posts and those of Voter this debate is likely to be very one-sided.

[Alzael]

If I compromised one of your debating strategies I apologise but looking at your posts and those of Voter this debate is likely to be very one-sided.

You're welcome to get in on the betting pool.

[velkyn]

My guess is that Voter will argue that BibleGod should not be expected to perform miracles anymore. Even if an amputee is never completely healed you could never expect that BibleGod could not have done so if he so wished!

RT, I can understand the eagerness, but can it wait until the debate is started?

OK, I understand that but what is the point of this thread then?
Should it be locked between you and Voter? So you can thrash out yours terms of reference? If that is the case then fine.

If I compromised one of your debating strategies I apologise but looking at your posts and those of Voter this debate is likely to be very one-sided.

You didn't compromise anything but there will be a thread created by Screwtape for voter and I.  Then there will be a thread for commentary about that debate.  that how it works.  this thread is for hashing out how the debate will run, not the debate itself.

[screwtape]

OK, I understand that but what is the point of this thread then?

This thread is to issue debate challenges.  It is for the participants to request the moderator to set up a debate thread in the actual Debate Room.  See also the first post of this thread and the Debate Rules thread.

You may post commentary about a specific debate in its commentary thread.

regards,
Screwtape

[screwtape]

I should have made the announcement, but in case you did not notice, the debate threads are set up and ready to roll, at your convenience.

[Timo]

Peace.  I would like to formally challenge MathIsCool to a debate on his contention that theism is required to account for morality.

[screwtape]

Does MathIsCool agree? 

[MathIsCool]

It's been almost 4 months, but MathIsCool has finally gotten around to agreeing.

Timo, you still up for it?  What kind of format are you thinking?  I know I'd like to have a decent chunk of time in between our responses -- say, a week?  I'd also like to settle on a finite number of posts each before starting into it.

[Timo]

Like I've already said, I'd prefer a more informal discussion since I don't think I'll be defending any alternative system of morality in particular since I don't think it's all that important to the discussion and would probably muddy the waters a bit.  My only contention will be that there's no reason to think that a moral system can only be based on God.  So yeah, I won't need an opening statement or anything like that. 

As far as time constraints, I feel you.  I'd say a week between responses is fine.  And if I respond within a week, I think it'd be fine if you took that week plus however many days early I responded.  I appreciate your taking the time to do this so I'm completely comfortable with giving you any accommodation you need.


Peace

[curiousgirl]

I would like to challenge L-Chaim to a debate regarding the (non)existence of Bible God.

[C]

If Mr. Whatchamean? would like, I will gladly accept his challenge of debating me on his claims that the story of Noah's Ark is true, as according to his beliefs.

Note that I am in a different timezone and so my responses could come after, during or before people, which would include Mr. Whatchamean?, are in the process of waking up. 

[HAL]

jakec47 PMed me that he would like a one-on-one debate.

Any takers out there?

What's the topic?

[JeffPT]

I might be up for it if the topic is interesting. 

[HAL]

I might be up for it if the topic is interesting.

OK, I sent him a PM to respond here.

[pianodwarf]

jakec47 PMed me that he would like a one-on-one debate.

Any takers out there?

What's the topic?

Depending on the topic, I'd be willing.

[jakec47]

I'm good for any topic, let anyone decide.

[pianodwarf]

I'm good for any topic, let anyone decide.

That's very sporting of you -- and I mean that sincerely, I'm not being snide -- but because you're the believer, and because believers come in all kinds of "stripes", as it were, it would probably be best for you to offer a topic.  Someone here might (for example) be willing to debate you on the issue of Young Earth Creationism, but that would be kind of pointless if you aren't a Young Earth Creationist -- some believers are, others aren't, and as far as I can recall, you haven't said whether you are or not.

I was about to offer to debate on the historicity of the global flood and Noah's Ark, for example, but then I realized you haven't stated either way whether you think that actually was an historical event.  (Used to be most believers did; these days, most don't.)

[Grimm]

... I have a topic, the same one I always seem to raise:

Given a definition of your particular sect or brand of theology and the structure of your Catechism, why should we accept your theology as relevant or accurate or authoritative, given the vast array of people who, by default, possess different brands of your own faith, much less different faiths and traditions entirely?

I submit that the atheist has no reason to consider your faith valid, as no evidence exists to validate your faith over one that is wholly incompatible with your own (e.g., Mormonism vs. Catholicism).

[kcrady]

I'd be willing to debate the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, assuming you think Jesus actually rose from the dead.

[One Above All]

I'm good for any topic, let anyone decide.

You gotta give a list of topics and where you stand on those, rather than something like this. How are we supposed to know which topics we disagree on?

[screwtape]

I split off the discussion on jakec47's beliefs because it's not really for this thread.  Split topic is here:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,21902.0.html


Now, would someone please decide on a goddamn debate topic already? 

[velkyn]

I vote that Kcrady has the first bites with the historicity of Jesus. 

[ParkingPlaces]

Well, I need to know if Kcrady is gonna do it, because if he is, I have to put of getting a new computer. I don't mind of the screen on my old one shatters in awe, but I wouldn't want to have that happen to a new one.

[kcrady]

I'll do it. Thanks for the compliment, Parking Places.   Jakec47, I'll debate the resurrection of Jesus (con/"didn't happen" position) or the proposition that the Jesus of the Gospels is a fictional character (pro).

[kcrady]

OK, jakec47, what do you think of the following format:

An Opening Statement by each of us (probably you first, since you're taking the "pro" position, but I am willing to go first if you prefer), followed by alternating Rebuttals and Statements, either continuing until we both feel we've covered all our material, or some set number (say, four turns each), followed by a Concluding Statement from each of us.  If you go first, my Concluding Statement would be the last post in the debate, and vice versa.  I would also like to propose that each "turn" be limited to a length of no more than two posts.  This will force us both to be concise and prevent our succeeding replies from becoming gigantic multi-post treatises.

What do you think?

[jakec47]

First off we need to go somewhere else for this debate, this thread is so filled. And my pro position would be that the Resurrection is true and Jesus really did rise from the dead. I agree with most of your format, I would ask if you go first, then I go, and we continue back and forth, and others should be left out so I don't have to go off topic or debate with more people at once. Two posts for our replies sounds fine to me.

[screwtape]

First off we need to go somewhere else for this debate, this thread is so filled.

here:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,21970.0.html